Another relevant factor to take into consideration is Luther's ravings
when he was an old, embittered, sick man (disgusted even with most Protestants,
including his own party, let alone Catholics): often regarded as from
1543 till his death in 1546. Many -- if not most -- Luther scholars
think they should be taken with a large grain of salt: certainly
not literally all down the line. Some of these rantings are blatantly
anti-Catholic in nature; other famous pontifications from this period
are his jeremiads against the "Sacramentarians" (Protestants who denied
the Real Presence in the Eucharist) and the Jews.

The context had to do with Luther's view of the Catholic Church: whether it still retained Christianity or could be regarded as Christian in some sense. I documented his affirmative views in that paper, but I also noted that he said many negative things, and that as an old man his rhetoric was so ratcheted-up that it must be interpreted a bit differently, taking his illness and frustrations, etc. into consideration.

Now, that rankled and distressed James Swan, an anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant polemicist, to such an extent that he felt compelled to rail about it on his site, Boors All: as usual, neither naming me nor linking to the paper where I stated this, so that folks could examine context (even though he quotes me directly).

All of this is quite ironic and ridiculous, of course, since Swan rants constantly about how Catholic apologists care nothing about context. Moreover, if I dare to show up on his site to give the link to the latest paper of mine that he is obsessed with as of late, and dare to present another side, he deletes everything I put up. Can't be too careful these days, in preserving cynical propaganda against criticism from those wascally wicked "Romanists"!! Here is what he wrote today:

Oh no with Luther, if he's saying something Romanists don't like which
disagrees with their preconceived historical revisionism, Luther isn't
"developing." Rather, he was such an erratic thinker that he
contradicted himself month to month, and... to make it worse, he was "an
old, embittered, sick man" so anything he said later in his life can't
be trusted. . . .

Luther did not consider the defenders of the papacy to be Christians,
and even in 1520, in a restrained way he's saying the same thing he did
20 years later when he was "an old, embittered, sick man."

First of all, I didn't say that we should entirely discount "anything" Luther wrote when he was old, sick, and embittered. I simply stated that it was "another relevant factor" and that (Protestant) Luther scholars "think they should be taken with a large grain of salt: certainly
not literally all down the line." Big wow! This is, unfortunately, classic Swan tactics: distort what the opponent says; don't cite it in context; don't provide a link for the same ends; don't allow the person to respond on your site; then proceed to tear down the straw man that isn't even the person's actual opinion, in an effort to defame and belittle. I never claimed that later Luther statements were to be completely disregarded or dismissed. But for Swan (given to myths and fairy-tales, above all, whenever the detested, despised "Romanists" are involved), somehow I did do that.

I shall now proceed to back up everything I stated from Protestant biographers, and even from John Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger: contemporaries, fellow "reformers" and acquaintances of Luther (if only by letter).

Roland H. Bainton

[author of Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (New York: Mentor Books, 1950): without question the most well-known and probably most renowned -- certainly most influential -- Luther biography in English; citations from the Internet Archive version, that can easily be searched by word; excerpts from chapter 22: "The Measure of the Man"]

The last sixteen years of Luther's life, from the
Augsburg Confession in 1530 to his death in
1546, are commonly treated more cursorily
by biographers than the earlier period, if indeed they are not omitted altogether. There
is a measure of justification for this comparative neglect because the last quarter of Luther's
life was neither determinative for his ideas
nor crucial for his achievements. . . .

. . . the
conflicts and the labors of the dramatic years had impaired his health
and made him prematurely an irascible old man, petulant, peevish,
unrestrained, and at times positively coarse. This is no doubt another
reason why biographers prefer to be brief in dealing with this period.
There are several incidents over which one would rather draw the
veil, but precisely because they are so often exploited to his discredit
they are not to be left unrecorded. The most notorious was his
attitude toward the bigamy of the landgrave, Philip of Hesse. . . . Luther's solution
of the problem can be called only a pitiable subterfuge.

. . . The second development of those later years was a hardening
toward sectaries, notably the Anabaptists.

[Bainton goes on to detail how Luther and Melanchthon adopted the view of capital punishment against them]

. . . Another dissenting group to attract Luther's concern was the
Jews.

[Bainton analyzes -- with obvious disapproval, as in all these cases -- the horrible and famous statements that Luther made against them, stating, "One could wish that Luther had died before ever this tract was
written."]

. . . The third group toward whom Luther became more bitter was the
papists. His railing against the pope became perhaps the more vituperative because there was so little else that could be done. Another
public appearance such as that at Worms, where an ampler confession
could be made, was denied Luther, and the martyrdom which came
to others also passed him by. He compensated by hurling vitriol
Toward the very end of his life he issued an illustrated tract with
outrageously vulgar cartoons. In all of this he was utterly unrestrained.

. . . However much the superb defiance of the earlier days might degenerate
into the peevishness of one racked by disease, labor, and discouragement, yet a case of genuine need would always restore his sense of
proportion and bring him into the breach. . . . Luther's later years are, however, by no means to be written
off as the sputterings of a dying
flame. If in his polemical tracts
he was at times savage and
coarse, in the works which constitute the real marrow of his
life's endeavor he grew constantly in maturity and artistic
creativity.

There you have it, folks. I outrageously (?) describe Luther as "an old, embittered, sick man . . . disgusted . . .." Two of those words are undeniable ("old" and "sick"); so the only "controversial" things I said was that he was "embittered" and "disgusted" (with various shortcomings among Protestants and all of his other concerns).

I stated that his "last years" were roughly from 1543-1546. Bainton dates them from 1530 on: 13 years earlier than my given dates. He even notes how historians generally greatly underemphasize the last 16 years of Luther's life. Thus, for Bainton (and Church historians generally), this is a far bigger factor in Luther analysis than in my view. Yet I am supposedly so "anti-Luther" and they are not.

Which is worse? I get trashed as a mere partisan of "Romanism" who cares nothing about historical fact, because I supposedly despise Luther (I don't: I admire him in many ways but am also a strong critic of his theological errors and whoppers about the Catholic Church and catholics: none of it entailing hatred or calumny), while Bainton gets a pass for stating far worse than I did? That is James Swan's Alice-in-Wonderland world, where facts are irrelevant and logic is a joke, and Catholics always wrong, wherever they disagree with Protestants: about anything whatever!

Martin Brecht

[author of Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church: 1532-1546 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993, from the 1987 German original; translated by James L. Schaaf) ]

. . . recent presentations have treated the last two decades of his life more or less cursorily . . .

It is well known that the personality of the old Luther displayed great tensions, both in deed and thought, His shortness and rudeness with his friends, although perhaps explainable, continually caused offense. In the many tasks that he had to perform, it was unavoidable that he also repeatedly made serious errors both ion practice and in theory. (Foreword, pp. xi-xii)

In February [1545] he was engaged in writing Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil . . . It was written in an extremely vehement manner, full of crude statements and vulgar expressions. He was probably unable, because of his declining abilities, to organize it in as well-balanced a manner as he planned. To this extent, it is not one of Luther's best works, but its offensiveness and formalistic weaknesses need not divert us from seeing that once again he was dealing with essential matters in his conflict with the papacy. (p. 359)

Although the manifestation of Christianity in the papacy was a pollution to Luther -- theologically, juridically, ecclesiastically, and politically -- his reaction was still inappropriate, for, conditioned in his anger and eschatological bias, he could scarcely see any positive alternative in the controversy that concerned him until his end. (p. 367)

Mark U. Edwards, Jr.

[author of Luther's Last Battles: Politics and Polemics, 1531-1546 (Ithaca, New York, and London: Cornell University Press, 1983) ]

It becomes difficult to escape the impression that Against Hanswurst[1541] represented an escalation in the coarseness and abusiveness of the
controversy . . .Heinrich Bullinger of Zurich [fellow Protestant "reformer"] . . . did characterize it
in a later letter to Bucer [another "reformer"] as 'unbecoming, completely immodest, entirely
scurrilous, and frivolous,' but his evaluation remained private. (p. 154)

Here is an excerpt from Luther's work, that Edwards cites on pp. 150-151:

You are both the real Hanswursts, bumpkins, louts, and boors . . . Both
of you, father and son, are incorrigible, honorless, perjured rogues . .
. But suppose what you will, so do it in your pants and hang it around
your neck and make a sausage of it for yourself and gobble it down, you
gross asses and sows!

Edwards:

The last major polemic of Luther's life [Against the Papacy at Rome, Founded by the Devil (March 1545) ] . . . was intended to inform
Protestants of the true horror of the papal antichrist and to discredit
the council convened at Trent . . . Without question it is the most
intentionally violent and vulgar writing to come from Luther's pen. (p. 163)

The Introduction for this hideous tract, in Luther's Works, the 55-volume American edition, describes it as "the most bitter of Luther's polemic writings" (LW, 41, 259-290)

Preserved Smith

During his later years Luther's polemic never flagged. His last book, Against the Papacy of Rome, founded by the Devil,
surpassed Cicero and the humanists and all that had ever been known in
the virulence of its invective . . . Of course such lack of restraint
largely defeated its own ends. The Swiss Reformer Bullinger called it
"amazingly violent," and a book than which he "had never read anything
more savage or imprudent." Our judgment of it must be tempered by the
consideration that Luther suffered in his last years from a nervous
malady and from other painful diseases, due partly to overwork and lack
of exercise, partly to the quantities of alcohol he imbibed, though he
never became intoxicated.

(Reformation in Europe, Book I of a two-volume edition of The Age of Reformation, New York: Collier Books, 1962; originally 1920, 102)

John Calvin

Writing to Luther's right hand man Philip Melanchthon, Calvin stated:

Your Pericles [Luther] allows himself to be carried beyond all due bounds with his love of thunder . . .

But,
you will say, his disposition is vehement, and his impetuosity is
ungovernable; -- as if that very vehemence did not break forth with all
the greater violence when all shew themselves alike indulgent to him,
and allow him to have his way, unquestioned. If this specimen of
overbearing tyranny has sprung forth already as the early blossom in the
springtide of a reviving Church, what must we expect in a short time,
when affairs have fallen into a far worse condition?

(28 June 1545; Letter CXXXVI in Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, edited by Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet, Volume 4: Letters, Part 1: 1528-1545,
translated by David Constable, Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of
Publication, 1858; reprinted by Baker Book House [Grand Rapids, Michigan],
1983, 466-467)

He was even more critical in a letter to Bullinger (the "reformers" had a knack of griping about each other in such letters):

I hear that Luther has at length broken forth in fierce invective, not so much against you as against the whole of us [referring to Luther's Short Confession Concerning the Supper] . . .

But
while he is endued with rare and excellent virtues, he labours at the
same time under serious faults. Would that he had rather studied to curb
this restless, uneasy temperament which is so apt to boil over in every
direction. I wish, moreover, that he had always bestowed the fruits of
that vehemence of natural temperament upon the enemies of the truth, and
that he had not flashed his lightning sometimes also upon the servants
of the Lord. Would that he had been more observant and careful in the
acknowledgment of his own vices. Flatterers have done him much mischief,
since he is naturally too prone to be over-indulgent to himself. It is
our part, however, so to reprove whatsoever evil qualities may beset
him, as that we may make some allowance for him at the same time on the
score of these remarkable endowments with which he has been gifted.

7 comments:

Objectivity and reason sure seems to 'fly-out-the-door' when James Swan pontificates on anything that involves the RCC. His penchant to ignore scholars (even those from his own paradigm) who differ with his anti-Catholic views is not only frustrating, but also troubling.

Dave, it's a losing battle. Committed anti-Anything-Roman-Catholic apologists will see Luther one dimensionally as the great enemy of the Papacy, sans his uncomfortably catholic left-overs, in which case he was just not sufficiently "Reformed" (TM) you see.

I don't know if it was dirty water from the Elbe or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder that set the good doctor of theology on edge, but CLEARLY his brilliance was plagued by his hot-temper and a loose cannon (AND canon, if you will!)

I admire a great deal of his works, and many of his theological insights are profoundly true. But anyone fairly acquainted with his writings cannot come away from them thinking, "Gee, there's a fellow with a level head and steady hand." Luther's all thunder and flashes of lightning. Brilliant, but noisy.

I'm not sure its fair to to write-off Luther's comments because he was ill, and if he truly believed the Vatican was born of the "Devil" then he would have no choice but to be frustrated given the significant success the Catholic church has seen compared with his.

However, as I have been studying the Bible again lately, I can't find a basis for some of the Catholic belief system such as the ability for a man [read Priest] to forgive another man of his sins. And as the Bible points out in the 10 commandments we are supposed to worship on the 7th day Sabbath, which is Saturday, not Sunday. These kinds of stark contrasts with what the NKJV Bible teaches, is what makes some scolars nervous.

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

Dave is basically the reason why I am the knowledgeable and passionate Catholic I am today. When I first decided in college to learn more about my Catholic faith, I read all of the tracts at Catholic Answers ... but then I needed more. I needed to move beyond the basics. Dave was the only one who had what I needed. I poured over his various dialogues and debates and found the answers to even the most obscure questions. His work showed me that there really is an answer to every conceivable question of and objection to the Catholic faith. That was a revelation for me, and it is one I will never forget. My own apologetical style (giving point-by-point rebuttals, relying heavily on Scripture, and being as thorough as possible) is influenced very heavily by his, and to this day I continue to learn and grow a great deal through his work explaining and defending the Catholic faith.

--- Nicholas Hardesty (DRE and apologist, 28 May 2015)

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.

I know you spend countless hours writing about and defending the Church. There may not be any American apologist who puts in more labor than you. You've been a hard-working laborer in the vineyard for a long time.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

--- Richard Olsen (Evangelical Protestant), 26 November 2012.

Dave writes a powerful message out of deep conviction and careful study. I strongly recommend the reading of his books. While not all readers will find it possible to agree with all his conclusions, every reader will gain much insight from reading carefully a well-crafted view that may be different from their own.

--- Jerome Smith (Evangelical Protestant and editor of The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge), 26 May 2015 on LinkedIn.

I think it's really inspirational, Dave, that you pursue your passion and calling in this way, understanding that it's financially difficult, but making it work anyway. You and I don't agree, but I have to respect the choice as opposed to being some sort of corporate sell out that may make decent money but lives without purpose. You can tell your grandkids what you did with your life, whereas some corporate VP will say that he helped drive a quarterly stock price up briefly and who cares? It's cool to see.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).